Family of Jehovah's Witness who died after refusing blood transfusion can't keep suing doctors

by pale.emperor 39 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  OrphanCrow

  Wonder: Are JW women aware at all about their high risk? Does anyone ever talk with pregnant?

  According to the court document, it was a staff member at the "bloodless center", a JW themselves, who explained the risks. However, it does not say if the patient knew what her risks of hemorrhaging were to begin with.

  ...Hahnemann had a “Bloodless Medicine Program” with three clerical staff who were Jehovah’s Witnesses. See N.T. 4/23/15 at 154. These clerks were responsible for explaining the risks inherent in not receiving blood transfusions and alternative treatment methods if transfusions are refused, ensuring the bloodless patients’ wishes were memorialized on blood transfusion refusal consent forms, and that this information was transmitted to and prominently displayed on the patient’s medical chart and hospital wristbands upon admission.
  On November 19, 2010, Seels-Davila and her father met with Iris Jiminez, one of the clerks at Hahnemann’s Center for Bloodless Medicine.

  It appears as though the (paid) JW staff of the bloodless center replace the HLC duties for the hospital. Note that the HLC were never mentioned in the court document.
• 

  TheWonderofYou

  It appears as though the (paid) JW staff of the bloodless center replace the HLC duties for the hospital. Note that the HLC were never mentioned in the court document.

  What sounds practical and patient-oriented! Why should a suffering patient have besides the clerks so much persons of the HLC to talk with or to argument with. Why would one who is already standfast need to talk so much with HLC guys at all?

  Would it not be the best patient oriented way to minimize contact of HLC and let this job do a little circle of clerks who does the daily nursing job, with whom one likes to talk, is already familiar a JW staff that does also the daily routine work at your body, the JW clerks who do their job and will it do bloodless and patient orientated-
  
  
• 

  LisaRose

  Another entirely preventable death because the Watchtower refuses to admit thet were wrong to forbid blood transfusions. Very sad, but not the hospitals fault, they did the best they could given the circumstances.
• 

  problemaddict 2

  Orphan Crow,

  I appreciate the info. My first child i was a JW, the second I had left. Both were complicated, and blood was almost introduced.

  I think the word "mundane" was a poor choice. I suppose I meant "common". Birth is a common procedure. Like do the elders show up for tonsillectomies? There is a larger than normal bleed risk there. I just hadn't really heard of it before, and I was being "groomed" for the HLC at one point in my former life.

  Either way, i did not know the risk was that high, and transfusions commonplace. thanks for the details.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  problemaddict: Orphan Crow,
  I appreciate the info. My first child i was a JW, the second I had left. Both were complicated, and blood was almost introduced.
  I think the word "mundane" was a poor choice. I suppose I meant "common". Birth is a common procedure. Like do the elders show up for tonsillectomies? There is a larger than normal bleed risk there. I just hadn't really heard of it before, and I was being "groomed" for the HLC at one point in my former life.

  Either way, i did not know the risk was that high, and transfusions commonplace. thanks for the details.

  Yes, birth is common. Pretty much as common as death is. :)

  I don't know if the HLC/elders show up for tonsillectomies. They likely do. The procedure is not as common as childbirth but the risk of bleeding is about the same - 3%.

  It is alarming that you were being groomed for the HLC and had never been given the facts about the risks of bleeding for pregnant women. And that is what happens with the WT directed HLC and the "bloodless medicine centers" - they have been trained by the WT and they haven't been given the correct information. The information they are trained with is very, very one-sided and often outdated and inaccurate.

  This page debunks a lot of the WT blood information:

  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Blood_Transfusions:_How_Safe
  

  The risk that takes center stage for the JW patient is the risk that has been given to them by the WTS: they won't get to paradise if they take non-approved blood.
• 

  UnshackleTheChains

  Another waste of a young woman's life. It is just so sad.. The WT corporation will will face a backlash when they eventually get rid of 'their" blood policy
• 

  smiddy

  Jehovahs Witnesses know full well the dangers of rejecting blood transfusions in life threatening situations and they still go against the doctors advice to accept a blood transfusion if the doctor finds it necessary.

  They find a doctor who will treat a JW patient respecting their beliefs and when things go wrong these JW`s want to and do sue the medical profession for damages .

  How can anyone in their right mind have any respect for people or a religion that sues the people who bend over backwards to accomodate their beliefs.
• 

  Tallon

  How can anyone in their right mind have any respect for people or a religion that sues the people who bend over backwards to accommodate their beliefs.

  Well said, Smiddy !
  
  
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Let me just join the chorus.

  They signed off on "We know and assume the risks."
  After they wouldn't back down on the risks at a critical moment, they try to blame the doctors.
  They go so far as to seek out a so-called expert against bloodless surgery, probably to say that they did not really understand "the risks" that were actually involved.

  So, they would have otherwise just let the patient die in a regular hospital setting in some horrible way instead of taking the risks of bloodless delivery ....if they better understood the risks that their expert was going to say were withheld from them.
  
  
  What a waste of money to the legal system that had to tell them to finally stop their nonsense.

  Deep down, they probably wanted a court-forced order of blood put into the patient to save her life and to appease Watchtower, and to sue the state for doing that.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  On the WayOut: So, they would have otherwise just let the patient die in a regular hospital setting in some horrible way instead of taking the risks of bloodless delivery ....if they better understood the risks that their expert was going to say were withheld from them.

  ...ummm, I don't think that is what happened. The father of the woman who died was trying to make the claim that the hospital's "bloodless surgery" program was deficient.

  Can you explain what you mean by "the risks of 'bloodless delivery'"? What is bloodless delivery?

  *edit to add:

  from the court document:

  “The surgery is performed the

  same way. There is no different way to do a Csection

  for a bloodless patient, for a Jehovah’s

  Witness, than someone that does accept blood. We

  have techniques. We are meticulous with every

  surgery. There is no different technique because she

  is Jehovah’s Witness. There is no special way to do a

  C-section on a Jehovah’s Witness.”